^{page 125 note 1} Nouns in ur can have an active and a passive meaning. comes from the verb tóm-mek ‘to stuff, to fill very full.’ Compare tóm-uγ the thick fur cap of the Kirghis, tóm-aq the wide trousers of the Ulemas, toóm-ā-laq ‘thick, stumpy, plump,’ tóm-an-maq ‘to become wealthy,’ tim ‘an arch, a vault.’

^{page 128 note 1} Comp. my article in Zeitsch. der Deutsch. morgen. Gesell. vol. xxiv. pp. 125–144.Google Scholar

^{page 140 note 1} Lit. ‘war-chief.’ According to Chinese sources his proper name was Timudgin, i.e. timurgi, or ‘the man of iron’; comp. “the iron duke.”

^{page 144 note 1} In the great battle delivered by Kukhan to Sultan Sanjar of Persia, as early as 1141, Ibn-el-Athir already affirms that the army consisted of Turks, Chinese, Khataians, and many others.

^{page 146 note 1} On the other hand, they seem to have Tartarized the German Groschen into Gurush (). It is a question for the antiquary to decide whether this name, and the coin it represents, travelled from west to east, or from east to west.

^{page 146 note 2} According to a view now very generally held, Stambul, or, in its full Turkish form, Istambul, was derived from εἰς τν πλιν. But whoever may have been the author of this bold attempt at explanation, he has decidedly proved himself thereby more familiar with the Greek than with the Turkish language. From a purely Greek point of view it was tempting to recognize εις in Is, την in tam, and πολ. in bul. But that this is altogether erroneous, there cannot be any doubt. Even if we are prepared to overlook the strange conversion of a preposition and an inflected article into a proper name, and of την into tan, we would naturally expect that then also the corresponding case of the noun would have been preserved, and that the proper name would have become Istambulin. But as the new proper name is Turkish, and was fabricated by Turks and not by Greeks, why seek so far-fetched and un-Turkish an explanation, when a Turkish one, and one so far more simple, natural and satisfactory, presents itself? The Greek name Constantinopolis was evidently too long and cumbersome for the Arabs and Turks. Therefore their great object was to shorten it; and this was effectually done by dropping the preposition Con and the termination tin of Constantin, and the termination is of πολις. In the same way they also dropped, e.g. the Ale of Alexandria (Iskanderiye) and the termination na of Smyrna (Ismir). Then there only remained stan and pol, or Stanpol, which, by known laws of euphony, became Stambol or Stambul. But as the Turkish language cannot begin a word with a double consonant, it was necessary to prefix a light vowel, i, which also in Arabic frequently has this function. Thus the name became Istambul () for Stambul, just as they also say Ismir for Smyrna, and Iskanderiye for Alexandria (ks or x being utterly foreign to the Turkish, had to be changed into sk: Skander for Ksander). That the Turks were not unacquainted with the compound nature of the name Constantinopolis appears from the fact that they also use in its stead the simple (kostantiniye), i.e. ‘the Constantinean’ (viz. ‘city’). But we Europeans, who without any difficulty can begin a word with st, say simply Stambul, for the more completely Turkish Istambul; just as also the Tartars, when adopting from the Chinese the corruption of their name Tatal, retained it in the form of Tatar, because the r was not unpronounceable for them, as it was for the Chinese. I may also add, that the zealous Moslims, instead of calling their capital Istambul or Istambol, take pride in giving it the ideal name of Islambol, i.e. Islam ‘fulness.’

^{page 150 note 1} I may here observe in passing that the name Turan, if, as its form plainly suggests, it is of Tartar-Turkish origin, can only be derived from this verb and is its regular participle present, signifying ‘standing up, rising, remaining erect.’ It was therefore a fitting designation of the mountainous regions and highlands of Central Asia. In English also ‘rise’ is used for elevation, height, mountain. In contradistinction to this, and on the supposition of its Tartar origin, Iran would signify ‘the plain, level ground, flat expanse, what is spread evenly, like the surface of a flowing water,’ being likewise the regular present participle r-án ‘flowing’; from r-maq, originally a regular verb, ‘to flow,’ but now only used as a substantive, ‘river’ (fluvius, flumen). This seems to me to have been the derivation and original signification of both these names—provided they come from a Tartar source—and at the time of their formation they, no doubt, also fully corresponded to the physical character of the respective territories to which they were applied. It must be observed that the opinion I have just expressed concerning tne words Turan and Iran is wholly based on the supposition of their being of Tartar origin. Such an origin as regards Turan is obvious and beyond any reasonable doubt; but though Iran is generally considered of Aryan origin, the striking similarity of its form with that of Turan may excuse me in hoping that men of science will not disdain to examine the name also trom a Tartar point of view.

^{page 157 note 1} The Arabic plural Raya, like that of Ulema ‘the learned,’ and many others, is by the Turks also constantly used as a singular.